Dialogue
is people talking together. The important thing is that the people agree to do
just that and nothing else. They are not concerned with winning
arguments, coming to conclusions, solving problems, resolving conflicts,
achieving consensus - or anything else other than talking. This gives them an
opportunity to delve into talking and what it does.

Talking
plays a big role in creating and sustaining human culture. Culture is built out
of the words, metaphors, points of view, ideas, beliefs, etc. that people
exchange. This is true in any kind of meeting, whatever its purpose. The
process of talking underlies the business meeting as well as idle conversations
in the pub. It is shared by men and women, by young and old, by people from the
east and from the west.

Talking
deliberately, yet without any explicit purpose, is at first felt as strange.
But, most people rapidly adjust; after all, talking is a natural human
activity. It helps us to find meaning. However we talk, we are immersed in
meaning, even if we have no apparent purpose.

There
is a meaning which comes into effect as we talk and does not have to be
'thought-up' before we talk to guide us (having an agenda and chairperson,
etc.). So, the meaning that is emerging as we talk can guide the way we
talk.[1]
This was the idea of David Bohm, who did so
much to spread the way of dialogue. He said that the very word 'dialogue' means
'to go through meaning': dia = 'through' and logos = 'meaning'. Dialogue is
then the 'way' of meaning, the Tao of the logos! It is an art and
skill that allows the natural process to unfold. Just as people used to
consider the nature of a forest or jungle as wild, untamed, irrational so do
many people today regard the process of dialogue as anarchic, chaotic and
unproductive.

To
practice dialogue, to take the way of meaning, is a conscious work. It requires
whatever alertness, sensitivity, maturity, love and intelligence we can muster.
But, whatever the degree of our experience, dialogue involves the unknown. The
dialogue process challenges itself. [2]

Listening.We are used to reacting to what
others say and engaging in a back-and-forth style of conversation, trying to
make our point. In dialogue, whatever anyone says has first of all to be
listened to and allowed to stand just as it is. There is no such thing as a
'wrong idea'. But, there may well be contradictory ideas, or just different
ideas. The different ideas are put forward to stand side by side with each
other. So, our first discipline is to listen to what is said by everyone.

Diversity. The more diverse the people and
their points of view, the better. The only way in which we can see into our own
assumptions is to be confronted by views that differ from our own. Dialogue
does not seek to resolve differences, only to clarify them. The general outlook
is that each of us sees the reality but only partially. There is the story of
the blind men and the elephant. Each blind man feels a part of the elephant and
interprets what it is accordingly. Maybe, if they exchanged their ideas they
would come to some understanding of the real elephant.
But, is there an elephant at all?

Closure.
The dialogue process takes place within a certain compass of space
and time. By and large, people are encouraged to stay together in the same room
and only leave or separate when they all agree to do so. This means, in
practice, that the ending of the event is a delicate matter. The process of
dialogue may arouse inner questioning into previously undisturbed areas and the
group needs to be sensitive to this. It needs to look into whether the process
is adequately finished. Once the dialogue is agreed to be over, it is advisable
not to refer to issues raised in it afterwards in other kinds of conversation.
This can spoil things.

Present moment. As far as is reasonable and
possible, the more the conversation concerns what is happening 'now' the
better. This makes it more alive. We are used to having conversations based on
things that have happened to us the past, or on thoughts we have had in the
past. It may take some time to adjust to having a present moment conversation
that is related to the process in hand. This process concerns how we think,
believe, experience, judge, conceive, etc.

Facilitation. There is no facilitator. Or,
everyone is a facilitator. No-one is more an expert than anyone else. Each is
considered as an 'expert' in their own specific way. Everyone is responsible
for what happens. Anyone may intervene as they see fit. The most important
factor can be: those who tend to speak choosing not to speak, and those who
tend not to speak choosing to speak.

Patience. There is some requirement to be
patient. Sometimes, people feel that the process is bogged down or going
nowhere. They may even experience frustration. This is not 'bad'. Whatever
happens is what the people have made happen. If people stay with the process it
evolves itself, even though we may not be directly aware of this on the
time-scale of our present moment.

Application. People who become inspired by
dialogue may want to apply it in their work situation or in other kinds of
meeting. The general advice here is not to attempt this. Whatever one gains out
of dialogue will spontaneously find its way into the way one enters into
ordinary conversations. One is able to listen and think in a different way.

Dialogue
concerns individuals acting together with maximum diversity. Since the process
cannot be described in mechanistic terms, the preparation for dialogue must
concern the education of expectations. It is very important that people do not
gather under false pretences: as if for a discussion, or to solve some problem
or reach agreement. As far as possible, all who gather should clearly realise
that very little is guaranteed. [3]

Notes
This means that dialogue is a process that involves intrinsic rather than
extrinsic controls. It is a self-organising process such as consciousness
itself.
A group that claims to take up this challenge is the
SchoolofIgnorance

'Ignorance' is not simply the negative of knowledge but an independent factor
necessary for creative action. In some ways, it corresponds to the 'media'
factor spoken of by Edward Matchett.

The theory of dialogue involves reference to what Bohm calls the 'information
field'. This is not a field of energy, yet has an influence on all events which
'pass through' it. When a group meets for dialogue, their gathering entails a
specific information field that will unfold through the energies of interaction
between the people.